It’s Time for an International Ban Genetically Modified Humans
If you could ensure that your future children would be healthy, would you? This is a trivial question because most parents would stop at nothing to ensure that their children are healthy. Human germ-line engineering may soon make it possible to alter the genome of human embryos—permanently changing the genetic blueprint for every cell in an embryo’s body. Through human germ-line technology we could eradicate many debilitating genetic diseases (e.g. Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis etc.), prevent cancer, and even increase the average life span. Human germ-line engineering is prenatal and produces genetically modified traits that can be passed along to subsequent generations—so the resulting genetic alterations are permanent. The utilization of human germ-line engineering technology, however, is analogous to Pandora’s Box. As attractive as it may seem, opening Pandora’s Box and unleashing human germ-line engineering technology could have severe consequences including negative medical or economic ramifications and a potential amplification of social and economic stratification. In this paper I will present views on the consequences and possible regulation of human germ-line engineering. I propose that the risks of human germ-line engineering technology outweigh the potential benefits and therefore this technology needs to be banned.
Today, scientists know the specific locations of 1,400 genes on the human genome that, when defective, cause some form of genetic disease (Lucassen 139). In addition to this, genetic diseases account for thirty percent of all children admitted to hospitals (Lucassen 139). Unfortunately, at this point in time, there are no miracle cu...
... middle of paper ...
...hnology. The Pandora’s Box of human germ-line engineering does appear beautiful from outside but if opened, many negative health and economic consequences can be unleashed. An international ban of human germ-line engineering is required to keep this technology under control.
Works Cited
Gardner, William. “Can Human Genetic Enhancement be Prohibited” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20.1 (February 1995): 65-85.
Holtug, Nils. “Does Justice Require Genetic Enhancements?” Journal of Medical Ethics 25.2 (April 1999): 137-143.
Lucassen, Emy. “Teaching the ethics of genetic engineering” Journal of Biological Education 29 (Summer 1995): 129-139.
Rabino, Isaac. “Ethical Debates in Genetic Engineering: U.S. Scientists’ Attitudes on Patenting, Germ-Line
Research, Food Labeling, and Agri-Biotech Issues” Politics and the Life Sciences 17.2 (1998): 147-163.
Middle use the money he was stealing for his personal luxurious lifestyle and also for his family and friends. Invest investigators describe Madoff con game like an inside man. In order to keep his con up he had to "work with others who would help him carry out his complex criminal activity and who he could trust not to betray him"(Lewis, 2013 p.289). He works his family members like his brother Peter who later committed suicide during the trial.
Once you get them to settle down and get there mind focused on just walking and the rider then you know the bond with the rider and horse are strong. When it is time for the second run of the night you want to warm them up again but not as hard this time because he or she has already been warmed up once before this, so just a little warming up won’t hurt. When it is that time for the second run the rider will bring the horse him a set him or her up for their first barrel and make the most of the race. If you see the rider smiling then everyone knows she has done her job with this horse. The rider can make an automatic barrel horse where that horse know his job and she barely has to ask the horse for a turn or touch his face to go around that barrel. When the rider gets a horse to be like that everyone can tell they spent hours and days together. The rider worked with that horse but never made him sour or hate coming into the arena. They spent time working on flexing the horse and making sure he knew when to tuck his nose and leave it for an extra second. They will all see when they are running home how much they spend time they spend together if they are fast and smooth through the pattern and don’t have any blow ups before or after coming in and out of the arena. After the race is over and the announcer say who
Madoff started the scheme by misleading his clients to think that he was an elite investor because he was on a vast amount of important boards. Many believed the scheme and invested billions of dollars with Madoffs company. He was able to achieve some of the scheming through running his investments through a different part of his business. This was a way for only him to see the investments and the financial reports behind the investments. Bernard Madoff involved people
In 1990, the first great stride of genetics took place. This was called the Human Genome Project, a large-scale operation that was designed to understand the human genome (genetic structure). Since its commencement, there have been many leaps and bounds that have taken place. For certain genetic issues that we once knew nothing about, we no...
His Scheme had gone on for so long and the amount of money got so large that soon it was going to have to end. In the case of Bernie Madoff, his scheme started to fall apart after clients requested their returns back equaling about $7 billion dollars. The problem was Bernie only had about $300 million to give back. Bernie himself ran off with about $20 billion. (5 Years Ago)
Bernie Madoff is one of the greatest conman in history. The Bernie Madoff scandal takes the gold as one of the top ponzi scheme in America. Madoff started the Wall Street firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, in 1960. Starting off as a penny stock trader with five thousand dollars, earned from his workings as a lifeguard and sprinkler installer, his firm began to grow with the support of his father-in-law, Saul Alpern, who helped by referred a group of close friends and family. Originally, his firm made markets by the National Quotations Bureau’s Pink Sheets. However, in order to compete with the bigger firms that were trading on the New York Stock Exchange floor, his firm started to use very intelligent computer software that help distributed their quotes in second’s rater then minutes. This software later became the NASDAQ that we know today. In December of 2008 Bernard Madoff confessed that he had embezzling billions of dollars from investors. It is estimated to have lasted nearly two decades, and stolen approximately $64.8 billion. On December 11, 2008 he was arreste...
"When they are finally attempted…genetic manipulations will…be done to change a death sentence into a life verdict." In agreeing with this quote by James D. Watson, director of the Human Genome Project, I affirm today’s resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified." I will now present a few definitions. Human genetic engineering is the altering, removal, or addition of genes through genetic processes. Moral is "pertaining to right conduct; ethical." Justified is to be "proper; well-deserved." Therefore, something that is morally justified is ethically beneficial. My value today will be cost-benefit justice. When we examine the benefits that human genetic engineering provides to society, these benefits will outweigh any costs and will thus affirming the resolution will provide for justice. I will now present one observation—the existence of human genetic engineering will not be without limits. Patrick Ferreira, the director of medical genetics at the University of Alabama Hospitals, notes that a "technological imperative [states] that the development of extraordinary powers does not automatically authorize their use." In other words, the point of technology is to be careful, and as with any technology, a society will be meticulous in its understanding of human genetic engineering. I will now present 3 contentions that uphold my value of cost benefit justice.
We are closer that humanity ever has been to being able to intentionally manipulate DNA and thereby being capable of creating organisms that can dramatically improve our lives and wellbeing as a species. However, genetic engineering has to be appropriately regulated, taking into consideration ethical issues such as human rights, the dignity of the individual, harmful consequences and issues of morality followed by them. This paper will try to expand upon various views on genetic engineering and will pay homage to my background writing engineering research papers to consider the ethics of genetic engineering-the designer baby, cloning, how it relates to ethics in engineering generally, and the responsibilities of engineers and the concerns of
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is morally obligatory. In this paper I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.
Savulescu, Julian. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Human Beings.” Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Ed. David Kaplan. 2nd ed. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield, 2009. 417-430.
The most controversial case of fraud in history left more questions than answers. Bernard Madoff, with his company "Investment Securities LLC", chose the easy way to give him greater gains scamming people. Using the prestige he had and giant Ponzi scheme. That was how he was creating his fraud. Madoff did not steal the money immediately but was paid the promised returns with money paid by the entry of new customers paying its customers their profits and not realize and would not take legal action, this intelligent man or charlatan achievement out this scam film for over 20 years. Madoff achieving the greatest fraud in history with losses of more than 50,000 million alone was compared with the Enron case. In June 29, 2009, he was sentenced to 150 years in prison.
much an athlete as the rider. Barrel Racing is one sport where horses and their riders compete to get th...
Scientists and the general population favor genetic engineering because of the effects it has for the future generation; the advanced technology has helped our society to freely perform any improvements. Genetic engineering is currently an effective yet dangerous way to make this statement tangible. Though it may sound easy and harmless to change one’s genetic code, the conflicts do not only involve the scientific possibilities but also the human morals and ethics. When the scientists first used mice to practice this experiment, they “improved learning and memory” but showed an “increased sensitivity to pain.” The experiment has proven that while the result are favorable, there is a low percentage of success rate. Therefore, scientists have concluded that the resources they currently own will not allow an approval from the society to continually code new genes. While coding a new set of genes for people may be a benefitting idea, some people oppose this idea.
8 Oct. 1999. Available at: www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn24.html. Licking, Ellen. A. "Gene Therapy" Business Week 12 July 1998:94-104. Palmer, Julie Gage, and Leroy Walters. The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy.